Single-center studies, which were retrospective and/or involved unblinded colonoscopists, have suggested that water exchange, but not water immersion, compared with air insufflation significantly increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR), particularly in the proximal and right colon. Head-to-head comparison of the three techniques with ADR as primary outcome and blinded colonoscopists has not been reported to date. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded colonoscopists, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the three insertion techniques on ADR. A total of 1224 patients aged 50 - 70 years (672 males) and undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to water exchange, water immersion, or air insufflation. Split-dose bowel preparation was adopted to optimize colon cleansing. After the cecum had been reached, a second colonoscopist who was blinded to the insertion technique performed the withdrawal. The primary outcome was overall ADR according to the three insertion techniques (water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation). Secondary outcomes were other pertinent overall and right colon procedure-related measures. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Compared with air insufflation, water exchange achieved a significantly higher overall ADR (49.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 44.3 % - 54.2 % vs. 40.4 % 95 %CI 35.6 % - 45.3 %; = 0.03); water exchange showed comparable overall ADR vs. water immersion (43.4 %, 95 %CI 38.5 % - 48.3 %; = 0.28). In the right colon, water exchange achieved a higher ADR than air insufflation (24.0 %, 95 %CI 20.0 % - 28.5 % vs. 16.9 %, 95 %CI 13.4 % - 20.9 %; = 0.04) and a higher advanced ADR (6.1 %, 95 %CI 4.0 % - 9.0 % vs. 2.5 %, 95 %CI 1.2 % - 4.6 %; = 0.03). Compared with air insufflation, the mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with water exchange ( = 0.04). Water exchange achieved the highest cleanliness scores (overall and in the right colon). These variables were comparable between water immersion and air insufflation. The design with blinded observers strengthens the validity of the observation that water exchange, but not water immersion, can achieve significantly higher adenoma detection than air insufflation. Based on this evidence, the use of water exchange should be encouraged.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02041507).

No abstract

Biofilm elimination is often necessary during antimicrobial therapy or industrial medical manufacturing decontamination. In this context, ultrasound treatment has been frequently described in the literature for its antibiofilm effectiveness, but at the same time, various authors have described ultrasound as a formidable enhancer of bacterial viability. This discrepancy has found no solution in the current literature for around 9 years; some works have shown that every time bacteria are exposed to an ultrasonic field, both destruction and stimulation phenomena co-exist. This co-existence proves to have different final effects based on various factors such as: ultrasound frequency and intensity, the bacterial species involved, the material used for ultrasound diffusion, the presence of cavitation effects and the forms of bacterial planktonic or biofilm. The aim of this work is to analyze current concepts regarding ultrasound effect on prokaryotic cells, and in particular ultrasound activity on bacterial biofilm.

No abstract

The current results confirmed that water exchange minimized the requirement for sedation and increased the ADR.